Is one religion better than the other.. and if so....

[Father Heathen]

This is the equivalent of saying "considering the number of cultures in the world, isn't it reasonable to think they are all wrong?" How is it "wrong" for peoples to have unique cultural expressions of their values that inform life's meaningfulness? Might as well start calling diversity "wrong."

Ridiculous analogy. Religions make claims about things being absolute in the world, such as the nature of the universe, actual historical occurrences, etc. which either are or are not correct. The age of the earth, for example, isn't just a matter of opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

There must be one truth (period).

In the religious sense?

I don't think so. Religions must be aware of the specific realities of their communities and adherents if they are to be any good.

 

[Quintessence]

Ridiculous analogy. Religions make claims about things being absolute in the world, such as the natural of the universe, actual historical occurrences, etc. which either are or are not correct. The age of the earth, for example, isn't just a matter of opinion.

Please see here. 'Tis not a ridiculous analogy at all of one quits fixating on a tiny slice of what religions address and are about (and something many of them do not do at all).

 

[jeager106]

Not really, since most other religions make the same claim, thus you're back to square one.

Any shmuck can write **** down and then claim that the words were inspired by god while using circular logic to "prove" it.

The Bible authors were shumcks?

 

[Vorkosigan]

Are you under the impression that the only thing religions deal with are questions about the nature of the cosmos? If so, that is very... odd. Well, that's being gracious. It's just plain wrong.

Maybe my English is not very good, what I mean with “cosmos” is the universe, reality, everything. Its nature cannot depend on anyone’s opinion.(
If you keep looking for semantic issues this will get really boring)

 

[RabbiO]

The Bible authors were shumcks?

Wasn't that a Beatles cover band in the 1980s in Latvia?

 

[Vorkosigan]

The Bible authors were shumcks?

In the religious sense?

I don't think so. Religions must be aware of the specific realities of their communities and adherents if they are to be any good.

But religions make claims about the universe not just communities.

 

[LuisDantas]

But religions make claims about the universe not just communities.

Do they? And are they to be considered "binding" or otherwise important when they do so without regarding the adherents and the practice proper?

I don't think so. We have grown used to some flamboyant claims from some. That may have spoiled our conception of religion.

 

[Vorkosigan]

Do they? And are they to be considered "binding" or otherwise important when they do so without regarding the adherents and the practice proper?

I don't think so. We have grown used to some flamboyant claims from some. That may have spoiled our conception of religion.

You may be right about my conception of religions.
I think if some religions wouldn’t make claims about the natural world or try to influence public policy, I wouldn’t even know religions exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

You may be right about my conception of religions.
I think if some religions wouldn’t make claims about the natural world or try to influence public policy, I wouldn’t even know religions exist.

Personally, I don't really understand why "the origin of the world" or "afterlives" are even mentioned by religions. Those sound as such extraneous subject matters...

 

[buddhist]

Hi All,

I Was wondering what you think about the various religions and religion streams in the world.

Do you think that God is really in favor of one religion? If so, Which one and why?
Please try to avoid using scriptures as arguments as all religions are eventually based on scriptures and this is not a valid argument IMO.

If you think that one religion is indeed the "right" one, do you believe that following the wrong religion is a "Sin" or on the lighter case, Not the way to salvation.
Please note I'm asking those question out of interest and not because I look for a religion to follow (I personally think they are all false).

I Raise this question because it seems that no matter who i debate, their religion is always seems to be the truth and the valid way to win God's favor.

Also, If indeed one religion is better than the other, Is it better to be a Good person believing the wrong religion or a Bad person believing the right religion?

And I'm not talking about Good and Bad in a sense of following traditions or Mitzvot..

For example:
For Jews, the Sabath is one of the holiest things..
So is it better to be a thief that keeps the Sabath or A decent honest person who sees Sunday as a holy day?

Regards All, and Happy Rosh hashana

IMO the best religion is the one which accords with your personal, direct experience and understanding of the world around and in you, instead of relying on blind faith. In my case, that happens to be early Buddhism, which largely ignores things which we cannot truly know for ourselves (e.g. questions or alleged stories about "God", its prophets, etc.), but instead focuses on things we can know for ourselves (dukkha/suffering, and it's resolution).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Considering the number of religions that exist and have existed along history, isn’t it reasonable to think they are most likely all wrong?

Considering the number of theories of human origens that exist and have existed along history, isn’t it reasonable to think they are most likely all wrong?

No, there is absolutely nothing particularly 'reasonable' about it.​

 

[Vorkosigan]

Personally, I don't really understand why "the origin of the world" or "afterlives" are even mentioned by religions. Those sound as such extraneous subject matters...

I appreciate your patience to explain this, and I apologize for my ignorance and if I offended you.
What word should I use to refer to the kind of religion I was talking about?

 

[Father Heathen]

There must be one truth (period).

Sure, but how can you be certain that human kind has already nailed it, or ever will?

 

[Vorkosigan]

Considering the number of theories of human origens that exist and have existed along history, isn’t it reasonable to think they are most likely all wrong?

No, there is absolutely nothing particularly 'reasonable' about it.​

Yes, but science has a method to actually confirm if they are wrong. This allows knowledge to move forward.

 

[LuisDantas]

I appreciate your patience to explain this, and I apologize for my ignorance and if I offended you.
What word should I use to refer to the kind of religion I was talking about?

It is all right. I don't know that I would use any specific word, though. I tend to prefer warning against superstition running wild instead.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible authors were shumcks?

They instructed others to beat disobedient slaves, to sell their daughters into marriage against their will (i.e. sexual slavery), and to crush people's skulls with rocks for eating shrimp, wearing mixed fabrics, rotating crops, and speaking to menstruating women. So, yes, I would thrust my fist through the fabric of space and time and right into their throat.

 

[McBell]

There must be one truth (period).

Why?

1+1=2 is a truth.
But then, so is 4-2=2

Thus you have more than one truth leading to the same place.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, but science has a method to actually confirm if they are wrong. This allows knowledge to move forward.

True, but that in no way makes your assertion quoted above any less nonsense.

 

[Vorkosigan]

Why?

1+1=2 is a truth.
But then, so is 4-2=2

Thus you have more than one truth leading to the same place.

You just gave two example of (one) Arithmetic.